update_table

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'update', implying a mutation, but fails to mention permissions, side effects, idempotency, or response behavior. This is insufficient for safe use.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise (4 Chinese characters) but oddly under-specified for a mutating tool with multiple parameters. It is not verbose, but could better utilize space to add value without becoming lengthy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given only 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or how this update interacts with other table operations, leaving gaps for an AI.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter described (id, name, description). The overall description adds zero extra context beyond repeating the tool's purpose, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description '更新数据表信息' clearly states the action (update) and resource (table), distinguishing it from create and delete table tools. However, it does not detail which specific fields can be updated beyond what the schema already shows.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_table or update_record. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios, making it hard for an AI to decide when to invoke it correctly.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.